Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Re-scoping

I'm trying to write the one-paragraph summarized version of this article to put in Criticism of the Book of Mormon, but this article is just all over the place, and heavily redundant with Book of Mormon anachronisms. As a first step towards improvement, I propose that we move the "anachronism"-related content entirely out of this article and into the other. We can then keep a directly-archaeology-related summary section here, pointing the reader to that article for more info. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as nothing is lost, combining section 3 here with the anachronisms article seems appropriate. This article would then focus on the Smithsonian statement et al., and the LDS attempts at correlation. --Taivo (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this move. My sense of the current mainstream archaeological thought regarding the BOM is precisely the fact that there are so many anachronisms that it can't be taken seriously. This article would be woefully incomplete without addressing that issue. To me - that section is the core of this article - where archaeologists actually talk about real world archaeology. All the other stuff is speculation by Mormon apologists. As a point of interest, this list was the first "anachronism" list in any of the BOM articles - the other lists and articles grew out of this list a couple of years ago.--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification - I don't oppose having that information in the Criticism article, what I oppose is removing it from this article. So if it makes sense to include it in the other article, that is fine with me. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way - the criticism article is a POV fork - if this content is to be moved anywhere it should be the main BOM article itself. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

But of course that is an old rehashed argument - and I understand why the Criticism article exists.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that for my proposed re-scoping to make sense, we would also move this article to Geography and the Book of Mormon. The archaeological information can reside at the anachronisms article, since it makes up 90% of that article anyways. At that point, it would probably be wise to have "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon" redirect to "Book of Mormon anachronisms".

There are two problems I'm trying to address:

1. removing duplication of the archaeological information between two articles
2. clarifying the scope of this article

(I am not proposing any modification to the Criticism of the Book of Mormon article in relation to this scope-change proposal; since it is effectively the parent article of both this article and the "anachronisms" article, it can summarize their contents.)

The only problem with this arrangement would be that the Smithsonian statement wouldn't really fit in anywhere. This isn't the only solution; another option is to eliminate Book of Mormon anachronisms, merging its content mostly into this article, and some into the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon aritcle. And perhaps moving the geography theories into a separate article. What solution do you think makes the most sense for dealing with the 2 problems mentioned? Do you agree that they are problems at all? ...comments? ~BFizz 01:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-scoping: act two

The more I think about it, the more I think that my second idea would be better. To wit:

• Eliminate Book of Mormon anachronisms
  • preserve all content in:
    • Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
    • Linguistics and the Book of Mormon
  • make it redirect to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
• Create Book of Mormon geographical theories
  • Move relevant content from Archaeology and the Book of Mormon there
  • Keep a summary at Archaeology and the Book of Mormon and consider this to be a parent article to the geographical theories
  • Possibly merge Limited Geography Model (Book of Mormon) into it

I do not want Book of Mormon geographical theories to just be an apologetic fork; criticism of the theories and counter-evidence should be presented there as well. This way, archaeological finds directly related to the Book of Mormon stay in this article, while archaeological finds that are only pertinent to the various apologetic theories go in that article.

The name of Book of Mormon geographical theories is iffy though. Got any better suggestions? ...comments? ~BFizz 22:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am cool with that approach. Any other input from other editors? By the way you should probably also take into account this crazy ass article: Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting.--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I guess we should try to merge that into the to-be-created Book of Mormon geographical theories. Or perhaps turn it into a list. Or something. In any event, I think its safe for now to pretend that it doesn't exist, perform the proposed re-scoping as I described, and then deal with it later. Ugh. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Templates have been up for a while with no new discussion. Over the next few days I'll try to get this move/merge done. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the above suggestions and mergers. However, I think that ultimately this article, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon needs a new title. There are certainly Mormon archaeologists, but there currently exists no operative field of true archeology that relates to the Book of Mormon. The Mormon scholars trying to connect the Book of Mormon to the real world have never published their work in any peer reviewed archaeology journals. While they have made correlations and speculations based on their own work or the work of mainstream archeologists, these findings do not fall within the field of archaeology. Because they are speculative and based on religious preconceptions, they just aren't rigorous enough to be considered science by the academic community, and are not peer reviewed. So to avoid suggesting a connection to the mainstream field of archaeology, I'd suggest calling this article something like "Book of Mormon historical theories." COGDEN 12:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems like we could also merge the historicity of the Book of Mormon article into all of this. Kant66 (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would Support the merges as proposed by BFizz, but I don't want to be the one doing the work. (If it were up to me I'd AfD the lot of them, and I agree 100% with this comment.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Rust on copper?

Copper does not rust. It oxidizes. By definition, "rust" is iron oxide. Here are some sources for that:

[1] "The resistance of all grades of copper to atmospheric corrosion is good, hence their wide usage for roofing and for contact with most waters. The metal develops adherent protective coatings, initially of oxide, but subsequently thickening to give a familiar green patina on roofs and the dark brownish color of bronze statuary. Because copper is largely unaffected by potable water, its is widely used for tubes carrying domestic and industrial water. (C)opper and copper alloys have demonstrated superior corrosion performance.

[2] "HOW DOES RUST FORM? Rust forms due to the reaction of oxygen dissolved in water with iron. Rust is a generic term to describe different oxides, Fe(OH)2, Fe(OH)3, FeO(OH), Fe2O3.H2O that form when iron corrodes."

--Manway 19:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing a change to this article? Please clarify your intentions. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Manway is responding to two recent edits concerning this topic. If you look at the edit history of the article, you'll see that someone else (I don't recall whom) removed a cn tag for the statement that copper rusts because "it's a scientific fact". I changed it to say that copper corrodes and put back a cn tag to the conclusion that was based upon copper rusting, with an explanation that, no, copper does not rust; rust is iron oxide. LadyofShalott 01:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's it exactly. Thank you, Lady. I wasn't too clear. Regards, --Manway 01:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This article should be titled "How Archeology Disproves the Book of Mormon" since that is the focus, not "Archeology and the Book of Mormon" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.173.216.84 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources for DNA analysis of horses in America

Help me out guys. I'm new to wikipedia and trying to include fairly recent DNA studies that support the archaeological and historical record of no horses in America between the large mammal extinction and the arrival of Columbus. I got off on the wrong foot. Advice and assistance will be greatly appreciated. Tapirrider (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts in improving/updating Wikipedia. Because a lot of unreliable stuff is posted on Wikipedia, editors are concerned to accept only verifiably reliable sources. The first reference you give did not at first appear to me to be a reliable source. However, I mistakenly thought, looking at the page history that the successive reverts were of the same content each time. Youtube is rarely a reliable source. The main reason I reverted you however, was to take it to the talk page.

You are probably unaware of this, but there is a rule on Wikipedia that an editor must not perform over three reverts on one page within 24 hours. This is considered edit warring, and can result in a block. When editors continue to disagree with each other, it's useless to edit back and forth. The solution is to discuss a change on the article's talk page and to reach a consensus or compromise before adding the material again.

(A minor point: a new discussion should normally be started in a new section, so I moved your comment here)

After reviewing your latest edit, I actually do not see major problems with the provided references, although the wording may need some work to be more encyclopedic. I would actually support restoring your edit and tweak from there. However, please do not do so immediately, give other editors some time (maybe a day or two) to respond. -- Lindert (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Tapirrider, you don't delete another editor's contribution on the Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The comment about "archeologists are beginning to speak out" isn't appropriate and actually implies that they used to be silent (they weren't). The added references in the lower section are fine with me. A bit of overkill, but more recent. --Taivo (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Windows

I belive that the information that Book of Mormon apologists say that windows is metioned 42 times in the Bible and that the windows could be covered with would and "dashed to pieces is relevant. Also, this information is on the Wikipedia page "Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon" So I think this information should be on the page.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between the anachronisms article and this archaeology article. The archaeology article is about archeological issues related to the BOM, that is, stuff that the BOM mentions that did not occur in the pre-Columbian New World. The information about windows and the Bible is not relevant here since the Bible does not occur in the New World. The anachronisms article is a different matter since it's about time relationships, where the BOM mentions something at a time before it was invented anywhere.(not true) While there is some overlap and are some definition issues between these two articles, they should NOT be copies of each other. Problems and inappropriate overlaps between these two articles should be fixed, not compounded. Just because something is appropriate there (the windows in the Bible information) doesn't make it appropriate here (and vice versa). Indeed, if the Bible is an argument for X, then it should not be here, just there. --Taivo (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Now, I don't know if Tavio is anti-Mormon or not, but he seems to be stuck on the Windows=glass concept, and not open to the idea of wooden shuders, or the that the use of window in the bible validates the use of window in the Book of Mormon. I, on the other hand, thinks it does. Now, if he were to read the Book of Mormon carefully, which I have, he would notice that when the use of windows in mentioned, it is when in the book of Ether, when the Jaridites are about to cross the water to the promised land. Now, any one with a brain could logically say that because this happend right after the tower of Babel, which happened in the book of Genesis, after Noah built the ark, which when God tells Noah how to build the ark, windows are mentioned, so it is not imposible that the Jaridites would have called opening in walls windows. If you agree, please say so.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who you're talking about, Rokclaw. If you're going to respond to someone, especially another editor with a very simple name, take two seconds to spell it correctly. Your argument doesn't address the issue. It's not at all about what the apologists say about windows in the Bible or whether they are right or wrong in drawing an analogy to the Bible. That is information for the anachronism article. This article is about New World archeology, not the Bible or anything related to the Bible. It is about how New World archeology relates to the Book of Mormon. Anything having to do with the Bible is irrelevant in this article because it says nothing whatsoever about New World archeology. It is a simple concept that the average reader can understand. So again, if you are using the Bible for an argument, it may be relevant over at the anachronisms article, but it is not relevant here. --Taivo (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In taking a closer look at the windows section, it wasn't really about New World archeology anyway, so I deleted it. As I have made very clear, but Rockclaw failed to understand, this article is focused more on the mismatches between the BOM and New World archeology while Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon is more focused on stuff that the BOM lists before it was actually available. There is significant overlap between the articles, but every attempt in the past to collapse them has been unsuccessful or opposed. --Taivo (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. Let's put this behind.(and no, I understood what Taivo said, I just disagreed with the part about windows)Rockclaw1030 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

wheres the ten commandments?

Where's the ten commandments tablets? where's noah's ark? Where's arc of the covenenent? Where's other lost civilizations or unexplained stone works etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northsidequeen (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? That the lack of the items you mentioned preclude any belief at all? Or that the lack of the items you mentioned prove the Book of Mormon? If it's the second, then your logic is faulty. The lack of evidence is not proven by lack of evidence elsewhere. --Manway 21:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Scholars, researchers and apologists revisited

The use of the term "apologist" was discussed in the archived talk page [3] and agreement was made that this presents a slanted POV. Calling someone an apologist tends to automatically discredit their work. These references should be reverted to "scholar" or "researcher." Mrmcplad (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, many of the apologists don't publish in refereed journals but in the highly slanted FARMS publications. That automatically calls into question the quality of their research and the "unbiased" nature of their work. Apologist is, indeed, the correct term for a publication in FARMS or similar LDS-funded propaganda tool. We might just as well call the critics scholars and researchers, but that will mask the fact that this is a highly slanted topic. There is zero peer-reviewed, neutral scientific evidence for the archeology of the Book of Mormon, but in order to have an article on this topic, we are forced to balance between those people at FARMS who are trying to prove the Book of Mormon (they don't do research that doesn't have that end in view) and those people (ex-members mostly) who publish direct rebuttals of the FARMS "work". Most scientists ignore the BOM because it has no basis in fact and publishing on the topic won't garner them funding for their research from mainline funding sources or get them publication credit for tenure or promotion. The only people who get credit for publishing on BOM topics are the BYU faculty and they are forced to publish in non-peer-reviewed sources since the peer review process will end in their work being rejected by regular scientific journals. "Apologist" is, therefore, the correct term to use here since the work is not peer-reviewed in a scientific journal and, therefore, cannot accurately be called "scientific". There are fine scholars who work at BYU; I know many personally. But when they publish science in peer reviewed journals, they do not mention the BOM at all and ignore any conjectures along those lines. Indeed, I have one friend who writes for FARMS occasionally who asked me to not mention his FARMS publications in any of the scientific meetings or publications where we both go and talk about non-BOM science. His exact comment to me on the matter ran along the lines of "FARMS is a place we can go to speculate for the faithful. The standard of proof is very, very low." The only appropriate places for BOM conjectures is in the LDS-funded pseudo-scientific journals where speculation to support the BOM is acceptable because it's not peer-reviewed by other scientists. Therefore, using the term "scientist" or "researcher" for their work in FARMS is pushing the limits of what we consider to be scientific work. "Apologist" is a non-derogatory way to indicate someone who is writing for the faithful outside the peer-reviewed world of scientific literature. --Taivo (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That "consensus" was five years ago and clearly doesn't reflect the consensus of the current crop of editors who watch this article. Consensus can change over 5 years. --Taivo (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"Most scientists ignore the BOM because it has no basis in fact" Isn't that exactly the question being asked? It's the logical fallacy of begging the question. If we first assume that the BoM has no basis in fact, then it becomes trivial to prove that it has no basis in fact with whatever evidence we pretend to look at. That is the fallacy I believe is being applied to this page, generally, and is reflected in such slanted POV language as "apologist" instead of "researcher." Will you please point me to the talk page where the current crop of editors voted on this change?Mrmcplad (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we don't "vote". This usage has been current in BOM pages for as long as I've been working on them--since about 2007. BOTH critics and apologists are "researchers". We distinguish between them by the terms "apologist" and "critic" and that usage has been current in these articles for years now. You are the one who is going to have to build some consensus for change since you are the one who doesn't like the status quo. --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Lindsay

See WP:RSN#Jeff Lindsay (engineer) jefflindsay.com. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

section: Recording records on metal plates

The theme of the article appears to be archaeological evidence in North America, so I do not see the relevance of this section. The first paragraph establishes that writing on metal plates is difficult. The following paragraphs mention engravings in the Old World, Jerusalem, and India without any North American context. It appears to either be arguing that Nephites came from Europe on the assumption that both Nephites and golden plates existed (missing the core question of "Did Nephites or golden plates exist?"), trying to establish that Nephites would use metal plates on the basis that extremely remote civilizations did (a logical fallacy and still failing to address any core issues), or evaluating the possibility of golden plates existing based on the difficulty of engraving them (not an archaeological question).

It...it's just a mess. I'm deleting it on these grounds. ~ Eidako (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Whole article not objective, focuses on disproving with non-fact based information.

I would hope that any person reading this Book of Mormon Archaeology wiki page would not only not learn anything from it, but totally be convinced, if they took the information to fact, that the Book of Mormon Archaeology is false. The entire article is written in a negative tone and is not objective in the least. It's only goal is to prove all the "alleged theories" wrong. This should not now or ever, with any subject that is written about, be considered valuable information. It is articles like this one that give good things in this life a bad name. If one put more time and effort into their research, they would find many, if not all, facts that the Book of Mormon states, to be true. Unfortunately, by the tone of this article, the writer did not do much research, if any. Not only that, but they were looking in the wrong places for their information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.199.231 (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Thank you for bearing your testimony, Elder. --Manway 04:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sacrament meeting over yet? --Taivo (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. Let's not bite the newcomers, guys. COGDEN 23:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions for how the article could be better written? Perhaps you can pinpoint a particular section that is slanted, and suggest an improvement? ...comments? ~BFizz 01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that this article tries too hard to disproove, while it ignores major finds that not even the brightest minds in 19th century United States could have known. These supportive archeaological finds are there, no matter if everybody agrees on the interpretation thereof, the finds still exist.

A few example: why does this article go to such lenghts disproving that houses can be made 100% by cement, while the real archeaological find is that the Mayans DID USE cement. This is something that was unknown to science until the 20th century! What other civilization used cement? Us/present-day, the Romans, and? This is a big archeological find supporting the Book of Mormon - and something that Joseph Smith could not have know.

Another one is NHM (Nahom). Whatever the right promounciation is, there are 3 facts: a) NHM existed b) NHM is where it is supposed to be according to the Book of Mormon c) NHM existed at the time mentioned in the Book of Mormon (dissapeared from history and was again found in 1994) The real question is: How does a)+b)+c) get into a 1830 book. published by an up-state New York farmboy?

Here are 13 more: 1. Mayans used books (as only American civilization) 2. Mayan reliefs show bearded men (non-existant in America) 3. Mayan reliefs show people of different skin color 4. Mayans used highways (like Romans, Chinese, and very few others) 5. The Book of Mormon mentions that roots where used for medicine - as did the Mayans (recently discovered) 6. The Book of Mormon (BoM) mentions that the earth goes around the sun. How many ancient civilizations knew that? When was it discovered that the Mayans knew this? 7. In South Mexico is a place where a man can walk from the Pacific to the Atlantic within a day's journey (not riding a horse) - as described in the BoM. 8. There are at least two rivers that run from the South to the North in the Mayan heartland - as described in the BoM 9. Cities, like la Mirador had a population of at least 80,000 - similar to BoM cities. 10. The La Mirador metropolitan area could have easily support armies as mentioned in the BoM 11. Several cities in the Mirador basin have large city/defence walls, some of them with significant signs of battle. These were within the past 60 years and unknown to science before - still correctly mentioned in a 1830s book. 12. The region of Bountiful (present day Oman) has surface ore - as described by Nephi/BoM. Something that exists in very few select places around the world -and still the surrounding in Oman matches the description in the BoM 100%... 13. The "land of Jerusalem" is not found in the Bible or any other religious text - until the 20th century when it appeared at least 5 times on Dead Sea scrolls.

Whoever wrote the book must have done some deep research. He/she knew that:

- Jerusalem had a city wall - Description of desert river (dry river) - approximate current flowing time from Asia to America - Mayan mythological concept of world - Armour that can be worn in tropical climate - Battle strategies - Expert knowledge of olive tree keeping/growing - Proximity fo Bethlehem to Jerusalem - and much more...

188.61.251.156 23:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.61.251.156 (talk)

As it says at the top, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.". Present some sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS that discuss the BOM and these issues and that would be an appropriate post. Just arguing for the authenticity of the BOM is not. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who googles these topics finds tons of sources (Google maps, Google images). Here are 11 credible archeaological sources for only 2 topics:

I. Cement sources: Archaeological evidence that cement has been known to Mayans (for whatever use) 1. http://theoldexplorer.com/index.php/maya-technology/cement (Jim O'Kon 40-year plus research) 2. http://www.authenticmaya.com/arquitectura_maya.htm 3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A45168302 (BBC) 4. http://www.academia.edu/366565/Building_Materials_of_the_Ancient_Maya_A_Study_of_Archaeological_Plasters (Lambert, Germany: Academic publication) 5. http://www.travelyucatan.com/tulum_ruins_tour.php (Mexico Tourism) 6. http://tulum.gob.mx/inicio/ (official government page - Tulum also is archeological evidence, starting in 1913, that Mayans did build defense walls - as mentioned in the BoM)

II. El Mirador (discovered 1926): Archaeological evidence that large cities, freeways, and armies of the size described in the BoM did exist 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mirador (Wikipedia article) 2. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/El-Mirador-the-Lost-City-of-the-Maya.html (Smithsonian - previously quoted in article) 3. http://www.miradorbasin.com/ (official site) 4. various CNN reports all over the internet (like: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/16/world/americas/central-america-maya-sites/index.html) 5. http://www.guatemala-times.com/culture/maya/2052-el-mirador-guatemala-saving-the-cradle-of-mayan-civilization.html (Guatamala Times)

I'm not "arguing for the authenticity" of the BoM. I'm stating simple Archaelogy and go, therefore, against much of this article. Examples:

a) Very questionable " reference sources" mentioned: http://www.whatismormonism.com/ (is there even one archaeologist behind this "source"? Who is even behind it?)

b) Dozends of references (such as on cement #75) are old, outdated, and disproven by modern archaeology. Sites like El Mirador (detailed investigation begun in 1978) proove that David S. Hyman's claims from 1975 were wrong. Mayans widely used a form of cement/concrete/plaster/mortar across their civilization (see Wikipedia article "Maya civilization" topic "Building materials" AND http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/El-Mirador-the-Lost-City-of-the-Maya.html).

c) Logical errors: Yales Michael Coe's horses statement. If "Joseph Smith... probably meant “horse”", then why is the BoM-"horse" not mentioned in any battle (majority of BoM)? Why are BoM distances measured in walking time? Why do BoM people who are in a hurry "march" or "walk" instead of riding a much faster horse? What did these people think when they looked at some "horse" and then started walking? and overall: What do all of these statements have to do with real archaeology? These quotes and many others (like personal opinions by Joseph Smith and ) should be deleted, as they are mere oppinions and not real archaeology.

I propose a split of "Anachronisms and archaeological findings" into "Anachronisms" and "Archaeological findings". A general review of the topics "Cement" (according to mordern archaeology) PLUS mentioning several topics like: "large cities" (not guesswork of where Zarahemla was, but the discovery of many large cities in "mainstream" archaeology) and "Military fortifications" which is proven to have existed in the El Mirador basin and in the city of Tulum under the top topic of "Archaeological findings". Other sub-topics headings, like "land of Jerusalem" etc., can be added. Statements like "...proving the historicity or divinity of the Book of Mormon" (credible source from 1969?) and others need to be ammended.

This article needs to move away from personal opinions and outdated archaeological data, to follow Wikipedia guidelines (credible+current source materials)! --188.61.251.156 (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

IP, the difficulty with this article is that it covers the "archeology" of a work of fiction as if it were something that seriously warrants consideration. Since some do believe that it is actually not a work of fiction, the text here in this article must carefully walk between the facts and the belief system. Any changes you make to this article should be carefully discussed and agreed upon in advance here on the Talk Page. It is also good Wikipedia practice to discuss each item individually and build a consensus. Editors who propose a large number of changes all at once tend to find their efforts frustrating and frustrated. --Taivo (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my point: while many's/this article's focus is on whether the BoM is fiction, my point is on archeology. The parallels leading to the discovery of the biblical city of Ur are striking. While self-proclaimed "scholars" discussed the divinity of the Old Testament, real archeologists discovered and described the city of Ur in the 1930s. Again: this article needs to recognize current archeological knowledge and academic publications, focus on facts, and follow Wikipedia guidelines. Above I propose changes to the topic cement (others to follow). I do not make any guesses how a 1830s book knew about pre-Columbian cement use, when the scientific archeological world didn't start to discover/accept this until the late 1970s. I only mention facts ("said here" and "discovered there") - plus I recognize that the discussion among some people (non-archeologists) goes on... Please review and make necessary changes (based on real archeology with credible AND current references). --188.61.251.156 (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not assume that you will necessarily build a consensus for any changes. The key is to discuss them first. --Taivo (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

New thoughts on Cement

I propose following changes to the Cement article

-> Please make changes, especially spelling (I didn't have much time)

Joseph Smith described the Book of Mormon plates as being deposited in a stone box in a New York hillside. The box was described as “formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement”.[ref: Joseph Smith History 1:52 (same as now in article)] Helaman chapter 3, verse 7 in the Book of Mormon states: "And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell."

When Joseph Smith made claims to a cemented stone box, the use of cement in pre-Columbian America was not known. Before 1970, the scientific world stated that there is no evidence of cement being widely used in the ancient Americas around the time of Christ [ref. same as now]. Mormon church leader Heber J. Grant recalled in 1929: "another young man who had received a doctor's degree ridiculed me for believing in the Book of Mormon. He said that one lie in the Book of Mormon is that the people had built their homes out of cement and that they were very skillful in the use of cement. He said there had never been found, and never would be found, a house built of cement by the ancient inhabitants of this country, because the people in that early age knew nothing about cement." (ref: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=128)

In 1970, this view changed when David S. Hyman stated that cement has been used by "at least some Pre-Columbian Native American groups".[ref -same as now]

Archeological discoveries after 1978 show a wide use of cement in pre-Columbian Messo-America. Notably the detailed description of the archaeological project El Mirador in modern department of El Petén, Guatemala (ref to wikipedia article) and the study of the German Lambert Academic Publishing (backed-up by dozens of international organizations, governments and scientists) proove a wide use of cement-like materials (ref: http://www.academia.edu/366565/Building_Materials_of_the_Ancient_Maya_A_Study_of_Archaeological_Plasters).

The Smithsonian notes in its article "El Mirador, the Lost City of the Maya" that El Mirador had plastered roadbeds 2 to 6 meters high and 20 to 40 meters wide.(ref: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/El-Mirador-the-Lost-City-of-the-Maya.html#ixzz29S50LKHN). The Mayan city of El Mirador which used to have an estimated 200,000 habitants is now researched by as many as 350 people, including scientists from some 52 universities and institutions (same ref).

In her study of archeological plasters as building material of the ancient Mayas, Isabel Villasenor (ref: Lambert, Germany, academic publisching) goes into great detail of Mayan lime plaster going back to 1000-400 BC. Her academic archeological disortation notes that "lime plaster constitutes one of the main components of Maya monumental architecture" and was "a common characteristic of Maya Lowlandcultural traditions"(same ref.)

From 2009 on, various news agencies like BBC, CNN, and others, started to report on cement or concrete findings. One BBC article points out the classic example of the Puuc style at Uxmal as buildings consising of carved stone façades over a concrete core (ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A45168302). CNN focused on the city of El Mirador (ref. http://www.miradorbasin.com/ - official site).

While the scientific world widely accepts the use of cement-like materials, mainly lime plaster, in Messo-America; today's disagreements of Book of Mormon cement is carried on by theologians and other scholars, who cite various out-dated publications or focus on some specific cement use. These include a) the speculation that Joseph Smith ment houses built entirely of cement; b) the distance between Messo-America and the hill where Smith found the cement-like stone box; and c) that it is not proven that the Mayans in El Mirador are the Nephites from the Book of Mormon. Mormon appologists find examplanations to counter these claims.

Mainstream archeologists do not get involved in such discussions and simply state: cement-like materials have been used by the Mayans from around 1,000 BC onward; and from earliest 1978 on, it is generally recognized that lime-plaster was a widely used building material in the Mayan civilization (ref. Wikipedia El Mirador article and Lambert publication). --188.61.251.156 (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts: 1) Too much WP:OR. Are Mormon apologists including this information now? 2) "Lime plaster" isn't really cement, is it? --Taivo (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Quick response: 1) I don't know about Mormon apologists and their work. I referenced official sites (El Mirador is supported with $35mio from the U.S. and Guatemala government, as well as 52 other universities and institutions), the Smithsonian, and has been covered by large news networks like BBC and CNN. There would be quite a few more pages in German and Spanish, which are maybe not too good for this article. In case I referenced some theological guess-work - I appologize. 2) Looking at the Lambert Academic publication, El Mirador official site, BBC, CNN, Guatemala government etc. the words concrete, cement, plaster, and lime-plaster are used interchangable. Lime-plaster is the most specific description of what kind of cement/concrete it is, while the other are more general. BBC for example "dumbs" it down to concrete, while academic publications go more into detail. In common English we also say "that building is made out of cement" - and not "...out of Oridnary Portland-Cement (or OPC)". --188.61.251.156 (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly no WP:OR on my part. Here's a small part of the academic research. Various sources / archeologist are mentioned covering about 2 pages of this very detailed academic publication (ref: http://www.academia.edu/366565 Building_Materials_of_the_Ancient_Maya_A_Study_of_Archaeological_Plasters) - this academic research has been, in part, supported by the German government. --188.61.251.156 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:OR and WP:SYN again. Original research in the Wikipedia context does not mean that you had a spade in the ground personally. It means that you are drawing facts together in an original way. It means that it is you who are calling this "evidence" to justify the fictional account in the BOM. That's why I asked about Mormon apologists. Are Mormon apologists using this archeology to support their beliefs or are you doing it first? --Taivo (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plenty of Mormon internet sites that make that connection - after all, El Mirador was "discovered" by a Mormon BYU archeologist... I don't like to do such theological guesswork, because I believe it's biased and often ignores archeological facts (such as many statements in this article), but I can ammend my cement-change proposal so that it will include some guesses by an Mormon apologists who once expressed his believe that cement in their holy book might actually have been used somewhere on the American continent, even if the scientific world was largely against it before the 1970s. Would that be in harmony with you / WP:OR and WP:SYN? --188.61.251.156 (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(Please learn how to indent so the thread is easier to follow.) I'm not sure that you understand the issue with WP:OR and WP:SYN. You need to provide some reliable sources, in terms of Mormon apologists or even Mormon archeologists, who specifically make the link between El Mirador and the BOM claim of cement. If the archeologists only say, "We found lime plaster at El Mirador," but don't specifically say, "like in the Book of Mormon," then it's not a reliable source. You need sources that make the link. If you make the link and Mormon sources don't make the link, then it's improper synthesis and original research. --Taivo (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I started to include some of the (non-scientific) discussion about no cement in pre-Columbian times in reference to Smith's claims of a cemented stone box. On Google, I noted tons of Ex-Mormon scholars who gave their oppinion on this subject. I am not familiar with non-archeaological claims based on theological conviction and currently don't have time to find references that specifically state that "Smith's claims about a cemented stone box are correct". Still, is this even needed? What do other Wikipedia contributors think?

I will check about Mormon claims (cement "like in the Book of Mormon,") later, but have to admit that I do not like such discussions. --188.61.251.156 (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Smiths's claims aren't correct because he was a crackpot ;) But I'm not sure you know what to be looking for. But without reputable Mormon apologists who are drawing the link between the text in the BOM and the archeology at El Mirador, then we can't include it here. --Taivo (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just read the paragraph that is in the article now and it is completely acceptable since it relates that cement has been found in Native America. There is no need to expand the existing paragraph since it has an appropriate reference. Remember, this article is not a missionary tract to prove that the BOM is true. It is a compendium of archeological issues related to both proving and disproving the thing. I don't see any need to either expand or shrink the current paragraph. --Taivo (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I recognize your stong emotions against Mormons and remind you that Wikipedia is no platform to express personal feelings. You may like the current cement article because it fits your personal feelings, but a) the claim of no widespread cement use is archeologically wrong and b) the reference is outdated / unacceptable from a archeological point of view. I deleted it on the grounds that is 100% wrong. Please review archeological evidence, i.e. Lambert academic paper. Again, as I said from the beginning, archeology isn't here to prove the BoM, it's YOU who insisted on that connection. --188.61.251.156 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What part of "cement was not widely used" have you proven false? Not a single, solitary word of it. Cement was used in a very restricted area of Mesoamerica. That is not "widely". The existing statement is still true--"cement was not widely used". El Mirador, and even "Mesoamerica", is not "widely". "Widely" means from Tierra del Fuego to the Bering Strait, or at least from south of the Amazon Basin to the Canadian subarctic. "Mesoamerica", whatever the author means by that, is not "widely". Perhaps you need to review WP:CONSENSUS before making any more changes to the text. --Taivo (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You think too much like a theologian that looks at today's world - with limited or no Pre-Columbian knowledge. Pre-Columbian means BEFORE Columbus. At that time, "things" were different. "Widespread" was (among others) about 80% of the population on the two American continents, the large majority of American civilizations, and most of the land where cities were - not some Hollywood Indians in a Western film or present-day borders! One who knows history, also knows that most of present-day North-America was unhabited. According to current archeological knowledge, all civilizations in Middle and South America used cement from 400 BC on (see my CREDIBLE references). North America (present day United States of America and Canada) saw comparable limited cement use (like in the cement picture you deleted)-not because of the lack of cement-knowledge - but due to the lack of large civilizations. Eskimo igloos and Sioux tipis just simply don't need cement! The deletion is correct. Please state your source / give current references for your archeologically wrong claim.

Also, am I wrong to assume that you only demand WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN when the outcome is in your personal favor? If you really hold up to these values, then please follow them yourself! Please give a reference where a CURRENT and CREDIBLE source says that cement was not widely used! The same counts for many other topics in this Wikipedia article. --188.61.251.156 (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(Please use indent.) You don't seem to understand. Mesoamerica is not "widely". What exactly is your source for the use of cement outside Mesoamerica? And provide the exact quote from the source that verifies it. The status quo among American archeologists until the 1970s was that there was no cement, so you need to demonstrate the extent to which that comment is false. I don't have a problem with including the use of cement in Mesoamerica, but you need more support for saying that it was used widely across the continent. It's not a theological issue. Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the word "theology". And, anon IP, you are bordering on a personal attack. This is about evidence and not overstating your case for something. Show me the exact quote that says cement use extended "widely" in the Americas. --Taivo (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You miss the point. Please read my proposal for change. According to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN, as you pointed out, statements in a Wikipedia article need to follow Wikipedia guidelines. I didn't write that false claim into the article, and therefore it either must be deleted or properly referenced. Currently it has no reference at all. Please fix it!--188.61.251.156 (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No sir, you have missed the point. You must demonstrate with a credible reference that cement was widely used in Native America. The BOM makes that claim, now back it up with archeology. --Taivo (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

188.61.251.156, you've provided NO sources whatsoever saying that there was any cement use in North America. The burden lies on you to provide evidence that a change is needed, not others. Requiring others to find sources for you, or find sources to dispute what you've not sourced at all, and disputing the reliability of good sources (such as this bit of tendentious editing) is disruptive and rude. You've provided absolutely no sources demonstrating any cement use, and edits based on the assumption that there might have been are not permissible. Quit editing tendentiously, quit wikilawyering, quit tag bombing, and quit pushing your Mormon POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I regognize your believe and ask you to follow above rules as well. Please read above listed credible sources. You now mention North America, pls ammend this in the article and give a credible citation. I provided at least 5 citation (I repeat: http://www.academia.edu/366565/Building_Materials_of_the_Ancient_Maya_A_Study_of_Archaeological_Plasters) that cement was used in ALL large American civilizations around the time of Christ / Book of Mormon times. What else do you need? The Lambert academic paper, as several others (see references above / incl. the web-pages of three governments) are backed up by just about EVERY scientific institution (over 52) and credible archeologist (hundreds) that works or has been working with ancient American civilizations. --188.61.251.156 (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And as Taivo pointed out repeatedly, your use of those sources was original research (many of them are about Mesoamerica, not where Smith "found" the BoM). David S. Hyman's "Pre-Columbian Cements: A Study of the Calcareous Cements in Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican Building Construction" is used to cite that there was no expert use of cement in the Americas during the time of Christ. Again, disputing the reliability of good sources is tendentious editing. You've also only provided evidence for isolated uses of cement, not "the scientific world widely accepts the use of cement-like materials," especially on the scale that the BoM talks about. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me guess, you also have a theological interest in this discussion and would like to disproove the BoM because of your personal believe. Otherwise you wouldn't have brought up Smith. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't want to argue with you about this. My interest the archeologically wrong statement in this article about cement. I guess you choose to ignore my previous references, so I give them to you again:

- http://www.academia.edu/366565/Building_Materials_of_the_Ancient_Maya_A_Study_of_Archaeological_Plasters

- http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/El-Mirador-the-Lost-City-of-the-Maya.html#ixzz29S50LKHN

- http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A45168302

- http://www.academia.edu/366565 Building_Materials_of_the_Ancient_Maya_A_Study_of_Archaeological_Plasters

- http://www.archaeology.org/0609/abstracts/pyramid.html

- http://www.miradorbasin.com/about.php

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mirador

I just googled this topic and also found these sites. I personally don't like to use them, but if you insist (some these articles would also go into your request of making a theological connection between Book of Mormon and Messoamerica):

- http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/16/mayans-may-offer-drought-management-lessons/

- http://books.google.ch/books?id=zwiHU8IfLQYC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=ancient+america+cement&source=bl&ots=EF5BwoB9Wc&sig=PPgy8bUq8gNWRbXJau0FulhNdRU&hl=de&sa=X&ei=Gb6CUI3fO9Ck4ASs0oHIBQ&ved=0CGoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=ancient%20america%20cement&f=false

- http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=128

- http://mormonmesoamerica.blogspot.ch/2008/08/cement-in-ancient-mesoamerica-and-book.html

- http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/04/maya-technology-and-concrete-towers.html

I repeat myself: ALL large ancient American civilizations around 1AD used a from of cement/concrete (see credible references). To what extent? Across the entire civilization!!! This has nothing to do with my personal research, but is simply archeological fact, accepted across the scientific community. Houses, temples, roads, highways, bridges, and much more - all large ancient American civilizations used various forms of cement. I repeat myself: your personal believes are an insult to archeologists who spent 1,000s of hours researching ancient American civilizations.

If you keep on rejecting my previous article change proposal, I propose this one:

Cement has not been widely used by ancient NORTH American native groups around the time of Christ, but various forms of cement have been used as construction material throughout all Messoamerican civilizations starting around 1,000BCE. (Smithsonian, El Mirador, Lambert, David S. Hyman, CNN, BBC references)

This form would actually follow Wikipedia guidlines, would not be an insult to archeology, and be theologically neutral (well, if one doesn't choose to ignore archeological facts)--188.61.251.156 (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a "theological issue", it's an issue of you wanting to prove a work of fiction to be fact. It's no different than someone wanting to prove the historical validity of "The Last of the Mohicans" or "Lord of the Rings". God is not involved in the issue, so your use of the word "theology" is not only incorrect, but offensive in that you are trying to frame our arguments in terms of a dispute on the nature of divinity. Get over it. Your belief system isn't the problem. The problem is trying to use archeology to support the fiction of the BOM. So I'm going to look at each of your sources to see whether or not it actually supports your contention that "ALL" pre-Columbian American civilizations used cement.

• Villasenor, "Archeological Plasters". Alonso doesn't even call this building material "cement". She calls them "Archaeological Plasters" and it is strictly a survey of Maya sites. You cannot assume that they are cement. I did a search on the pdf of her text and at no point does she unambiguously call these "cements". She uses the verb "cement" to mean bind things together and she clearly labels things like "Portland cement" and "Roman cement", but she has no such label for the Mayan plasters. The word "concrete" only occurs in the context of the Roman cements. FAIL
• Brown, "El Mirador" (Smithsonian magazine). This is more of a travelogue and not a serious archeological description. You apparently didn't actually read this article since there's not one single word about "cement". FAIL
• BBC, "Uxmal". This BBC note mentions unambiguously that the buildings are built around a concrete core. PASS for Uxal/Maya
• Your fourth reference above is identical with the first. Padding the list? FAIL
• Atwood, "Deconstructing a Maya Pyramid". I am becoming suspicious that all you did was present the results of Google search without actually reading a word. This article clearly states that the concrete/cement on the site was added in the 1950s to the surface of the pyramid. MASSIVE FAIL
• Mirador Basin Project. Now I am utterly convinced that all you did was a Google search. The only mention of cement in this article was that Central America's largest cement manufacturer was underwriting the excavation. MASSIVE AND UTTER FAIL
• Your next link was Wikipedia. You cannot use Wikipedia as a source. COMPLETE FAIL

At this point, the end of your NPOV sources, you have one and only one source that substantiates your claim that there was any cement in Native America at one site in Maya country. Your claim that it was found in all American civilizations is utterly and completely false based on the absolutely rotten list of failed sources you have given above. In reading over all of your previous posts, these are the only sources you have. You have ZERO evidence for widespread use of cement and only ONE BBC report on concrete being used at a single Mayan site. You have no valid argument for your position. --Taivo (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I just look out of curiosity at El Mirador and there's not a single solitary word there about "cement" or "concrete". Once you start actually reading the links you provide I might take you more seriously, but you have zero reliability at this point in terms of proving your points with reliable sources. A reliable source isn't just the result of a Google search. --Taivo (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I told you above that I used Google - isn't this how you came to your cement knowledge??? Have you ever seen one Mayan building in your life?

Again: Where is your reference to the statment that there is no evidence of cement being widely used in the ancient Americas around the times of Christ? Why do you argue when you cannot even follow the simplest Wikipedia quidelines? I don't have to prove anything, the argument in the article has no reference and is therefore original research (on your part) or a false claim w/o a citation (on your part). Please prove your wrong statement!!! If you cannot do this I will insert the citation needed link in the article until the topic of vandalism arises.

Could it be that you will twist any reference to meet your personal believe? Isn't this your and your friend's scheme for this article? Disprove the Book of Mormon and use whatever argument possible to frustrate any credible and neutral editor? Because of people like you, many real scientists and archeologists don't contribute to Wikipedia - even I don't like to deal with religious-fanatics. So that even a kindergarden kid can understand it, I will list quotes and links of credible and current statements that all large ancient American civilizations used a form of cement. I can list more. Any reader of this page will see it and will certainly have serious questions of why y'all argue a topic that is archeologically clear as the sun at noon and that you still did not find one source to back-up your wrong statement. Sad and persuasive of your real intent.

- Smithsonian.com (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/El-Mirador-the-Lost-City-of-the-Maya.html#ixzz29wM2meeB)

"There’s a plastered roadbed under there 2 to 6 meters high and 20 to 40 meters wide. A sacbe it’s called —white road. It runs for about 12 kilometers from Mirador to Nakbe. It’s part of the first freeway system in the world"

Sidenote: If this article were neutral, why is the archeological discovery of highways not mentioned? Weren't there tons of fanatics who proved the BoM wrong because no highways were ever found in ancient America? ...

-Lambert Academic Publishing, Building Materials of the Ancient Maya: A Study of Archaeological Plasters by Isabel Villaseñor

http://www.academia.edu/366565/Building_Materials_of_the_Ancient_Maya_A_Study_of_Archaeological_Plasters

"Lime plasters are mixtures of burnt lime, aggregates and other materials that were widely used by the ancient Maya in public monumental buildings."

Have you noticed: "widely"!!!

The book can be ordered here: http://www.amazon.com/Building-Materials-Ancient-Maya-Archaeological/dp/383833115X

No more sources needed as at least one academic paper/book states the lime plaser, which is to the uneducated person cement/concrete was widely used, (see resp. wikipedia articles of lime plaster, plaster etc). For example the Mayan city of Tulum, is often called a cement-making city (see official gov. page and many tourist web-pages, you can google it!).

-Wikipedia has CONSENSUS that concrete/cement was used in Mesoamerica see article Mesoamerican architecture

Still: Where is your ONE reference? I gave you again two. Instead of arguing, you should get busy to provide one credible source to your archeological wrong statement... --188.61.251.156 (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You apparently have a problem understanding that "plaster" is not "cement". The Villasenor paper never calls these plasters either cement or concrete, so that source is irrelevant here. The Smithsonian source never calls the plastered roadway either cement or concrete. And I clearly allowed that BBC article that said the core of the Mayan buildings at Uxmal were "concrete" (despite the fact that the "BBC" is not a specialized archeological source). The Wikipedia article we are discussing here clearly states exactly what the situation was: "Cement was unknown throughout most of the Americas, but there is evidence for its limited use in Mesoamerica". Indeed, we should limit "Mesoamerica" to just the Mayan civilization because that is the only example you have presented that talks about cement/concrete. Indeed, even all the articles of yours that I rejected (since they only mention "plaster") talk only about the Maya. And I got a real laugh when you emphasized the word "widely". That sentence says "plaster was used widely among the Maya". The Maya were neither widely found in the Americas, nor were they the only Native American civilization. Yes, the book can be ordered, but it's also available as a pdf download. I downloaded it yesterday and examined it thoroughly before I wrote the comment above. --Taivo (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a statement that is supported by your only relevant reference: "The only evidence of cement in the Americas is in a small number of Maya sites." That is the only statement that can be supported by your references. --Taivo (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had time to post Aztec, Inca and other American civilization references. I will do so this weekend. Three questions remain:

1. What is your reference for the wrong statement that "There is no evidence of cement being widely used in the ancient Americas" ??? You still didn't answer and am sure you don't have an answer...

2. Name any other civilization with large cities on the two American continents around 1AD ??? Let's see how much you know. Maybe "widespread" for people who actually know something of ancient America at 1AD means mainly Mayans...

3. What is the difference(-s) between how Mayans used lime plaster, how Romans used Roman cement, and how we use orginary Portland cement (OPC) today? This alone would explain why just about everybody speaks of Mayan cement/concrete without knowing what lime plaster is! I'm sure any reader of this talk page wouldn't say to his son "No son, this building is not made of cement. Today, we use ordinary Portland cement - OPC." You might, but most people (even archeologists/scientists) don't do this...

You can scrutanize whatever you like, but the time is here to actually deliver something as well. As said above: If you defend an archeologically wrong sentence in this article, state your credible source(-es) before you argue scientific knowledge --188.61.251.156 (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

First, you have no reason to pick "1 CE" as some sort of magic date. We're talking about the pre-Columbian era. Second, plaster is simply not cement/concrete. It doesn't matter if they were "used the same", they are not the same. I can use white gravy and Worcestershire sauce in the same way, too, but that doesn't make them the same. Third, you have one valid reference that points to a single Mayan site with "concrete cores" in their buildings (and it's not even a solid archeological reference, but a news site). You can continue to push your weak argument with your unfounded assertions, but when there is one and only one valid source to your statement your argument is very weak. --Taivo (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Taivo, I don't think we're going to get anything but WP:IDHT out of this guy. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I do believe you are correct, Ian.thomson. --Taivo (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You two are really good in quoting Wikipedia rules, while refusing to follow them yourselves. Where is your one reference that there is no cement use evidence? Why did you first insist on the time of Christ and now you magically change your argument to pre-Columbian time? Could it be that you finally realized that widespread cement use during Book of Mormon times means Messoamerica? Doesn't quite come to the conclusion you want, does it? Interesting how you cannot follow WP:IDHT... Well, this makes it even easier for me, because cement/concrete/plaster use was even more widespread after 1AD across North, Middle, and South America... Can you count? Even w/o one more reference there are already three documented pre-Columbian American cement/concrete cases. One: Ref. in the article. Two: picture you deleted. Three: Mayan concrete use you accept. How does WP:IDHT apply to your arguing? When will you insert the reference to your wrong statement? Reminder: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN!!! Three references against Zero... I will send you more references this weekend. --188.61.251.156 (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction: there are already 4 references. Ref. no 20 in the article. Four references support the archeological fact. ZERO references support your personal oppinion. Sad... --188.61.251.156 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• First, are you able to read? Would you like to point out a single time that I pushed for "time of Christ"? Not once. I'm talking about the whole expanse of pre-Columbian history.
• Second, the Book of Mormon claims to cover the history of ALL of Native America (remember that Smith's box wasn't in Mesoamerica but in New York state). Not once does the BOM text restrict itself to Mesoamerica, that is a minority view among the LDS faithful. Not once did Smith ever restrict his claims to just Mesoamerica--that is a very modern minority position among LDS apologists.
• Third, the BOM doesn't say "plaster", it says "cement" (and Smith knew the difference) so you cannot use any references that only say "plaster". You have ZERO references for the use of cement in Native America other than the one BBC article mentioned above, and that is restricted to Uxmal. You have provided not one single, solitary reference to expand the use of cement beyond Mesoamerica. Can YOU count? You obviously don't know the very information you've provided.
• Fourth, the photo I deleted was NOT of "cement". Are you completely ignorant of the difference between wattle and daub and cement? Dried mud is NOT "cement".
• Fifth, you have one reference to one single, solitary claim of cement in Uxmal and that isn't even from an archeological source, but from a BBC paragraph.
• Sixth, the reference in the article is not available on-line, so please provide any direct quotes from it (with page numbers) that bolster any of your claims. --Taivo (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the archeologically wrong sentence in the article. I agree, that the reference as it is now, cannot remain and needs to be changed. In general, I cannot and do not want to comment what Smith and LDS apologists claim. Of what I've read, much was guessed and especially in the early days much was assumed - w/o the archeological evidence.

I like to remind you that history/archeology cannot be judged with today's values, habbits, and culture. Today we use cacao beans for chocolate - something the Mayans never knew. However, they used cacao for a drink called xocolatl - or wine. Of course not the wine we know, but to them and to the Spanish conquistadores, it was described as "wine".

The same counts for plaster. Plaster has very poor qualities and any cement is by far the better choice for construction (today). Plaster is mainly used for surface applications (on walls). That is today's thinking. In Mayan times, this was very different. Our cement was their plaster. It wasn't just on walls, but a vital part of their construction material. It was used in the same way (with much poorer qualities) as the Romans used Roman cement and as we use ordinary Portland cement. That's the reason why it's been said that this or that Mayan temple has a concrete core - or that certain Mayan palace is made out of stone and cement. From a scientific descripion this not correct, a better wording would be "lime plaster used as cement-replacement" or "Mayan cement-like material".

Though even science isn't always correct - something that becomes more and more evident when one speaks several languages. In this article it states that there were no swine in Mesoamerica. In Germany, this discussion would be crazy, as one of the official names of the Capybaras is "Wasserschwein" (water pig). Llamas in English and Spanish used to be called Andean sheep, and a Guinea pig is certainly no swine. The Mountain goat is no goat and the Tapir is no pig or elephant, but rather a horse or rhino...

Both pre-Columbian (Mayan cement) and in today's world, words (by, in, and of themselves) are not always exactly what they literarily mean. Otherwise, you probably should also delete the sections on sheep, goats, and swine. After all, there are the Andean sheep, the Mountain goats, and the guinea PIGs... --188.61.251.156 (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking about "ancient Mayans" here. We're talking about the fact that Smith wrote "cement". Smith very well knew the difference between "plaster" and "cement". If he meant plaster he would have written plaster. But since he meant cement he wrote cement. If archeologists are telling us that the Mayans used plaster and not cement, then that is the issue. You can't read either the archeologists' or Smith's or the ancient Mayan's minds and interpret "plaster" as "cement". One source (so far, and a poor one at that) says that "concrete" was used at Uxmal. That's it right now. That's all you have. Now, there is a different issue here that you are apparently not understanding. The main "counterarguments" to the actual archeology is the twisting of archeology by LDS apologists to try to make the facts on the ground fit the fictional account in the BOM. That's what you're doing here--taking the BOM account as literal and then trying to twist facts to make it support the BOM text. Since the BOM says "cement", but there is no cement in Native America, you are twisting the meaning of "plaster" to cover cement. Now, you can't do that in Wikipedia since it would be improper synthesis. However, if other apologists have tried to do this, you can quote them. But the sentence in the article must label that as "LDS apologists claim that..." and not as you were trying to do "X is found in...". You must clearly label apologetic argument as "LDS apology" and not as the fact on the ground. Tapirs are not horses, so you see how that is treated in the article--"Apologists claim...." --Taivo (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The other problem you might wind up with, even if that one archeological source listed in the article pans out in its description is the problem of WP:FRINGE. If only one archeologist calls this "cement" and all the other archeologists call it "plaster", then the reliability of that one archeologist is called into doubt. --Taivo (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I know you're desparetly trying to disprove Mayan cement. Certainly, I cannot know what Smith meant. It sounds to me that you base your cement "knowledge" on the Book of Mormon. How else do you know that if Smith "meant plaster he would have written plaster"? Serious archeologists certainly don't do such guessing! I have a hard time thinking about pre-Columbian archeological sites that show evidence where binding materials were used like 1830s plaster, but know many where it was used like cement/concrete (just about all).

Sadly, in the scientific community, we are used to having people judge things in modern terms (guessing) and/or uneducated people using scientific words the wrong way. Even you prove this point: a tapir is scientifically speaking related to the horse, and yet you claim it's no horse at all. How about the guinea pigs? Aren't they pigs/swine? After all you claim modern "cement" must be pre-Columbian "cement".

Words are deceiving! That is normal in archeology and science. I see, as your no-cement-reference-claim is fading away, you shift your argument to the flaws of how various people look at archeological evidence. Be careful, this request can back-fire badly, as many statements/topics in this article don't follow this Wikipedia rule! (pig is pig) Also, you need to decide what kind of cement you are rooting for (Portland cement?, natural cement?) and then I suggest, for your own credibility, you stick to that description (however you justify knowing what BoM/Smith's cement was).

I found this quote from a Mormon: "About the only people that don't now accept the fact that the pre-Columbians used concrete ... are the hardened Book of Mormon Critics." This supports my observations in this article: basically no academic publishings since 1980 against the BoM are mentioned as references, but are of very questionable sources. For example, how can anybody (who wants to be taken serious) claim that Smith's description of "some kind of cement" rules out Mayan lime-plaster? As someone who formed a scientific oppinion long before reading about Book of Mormon cement, it it obvious that Smith's cement is not what you claim it to be...

Still, here are some cement references (as promised):

- U.S. Department of Engergy (official site): http://www.wipp.energy.gov/PICsProg/documents/Ancient%20Cementitious%20Materials.pdf (cementious materials)

- Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA): http://www.famsi.org/reports/06017/06017Sload01.pdf (concrete floor)

- Tourist site: http://www.travelyucatan.com/tulum_ruins_tour.php (Tulum area)

Probably as "educated" as Smith was...

- http://library.thinkquest.org/10098/mayan.htm (cement use)

Just to be clear: All this does not prove the Book of Mormon to be "devine" (article) - it only proves that Smith was right in pre-Columbian cement use(non-scientific description).--188.61.251.156 (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all you need to back off your anti-Mormon accusations of my motivation. You don't know me. This is entirely about making sure that the statements herein are scientifically justified. Ask anyone who has worked at Book of Mormon for any length of time and you will find that I am even-handed in my approach to protecting the NPOV of that article. So dial it down a notch or two. Second, I don't know where you learned biology, but a tapir is not a horse, they are distantly related, yes, an alligator is also distantly related to a tapir. Tapirs and horses are in different families and don't even look alike. And are you actually claiming that a guinea pig is a pig? Guinea pigs are rodents, pigs are artiodactyls, not even close. Third, we have already agreed that the Maya used cement. The first source you provided simply reiterates that point. It does not, however, mention any use outside of the Mayan area. Fourth, the second source you provide about Teotihuacan, however, uses the word "cement", but if you look at the definition of "Teotihuacan cement" in the first footnote, you will see that it is not cement, but a mix of volcanic scoria and mud plaster. That's not "cement" or "concrete", both of which are lime-based and require the cooking of the lime. So that source really isn't acceptable. And a tourist web site is not a reliable source. The final link you provide is really not a reliable scholarly source either. But even if these two sources were reliable, they still only point at the Maya. So all you really have is what the article already states--no cement use outside the Mayan area. --Taivo (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

To claim that a tapir is a horse is no less ridiculous than claiming that a lemur is a human. That mistake cannot be knowingly made by an honest and informed person, but only either by those who should either stay away from the article to avoid screwing it up, or by religious fundamentalists pretending they're not just trying to censor turn the article into pious propaganda. And what part of WP:No original research has not been made clear? None of the sources presented given any evidence of cement or cement like products being used anywhere near where Smith forg-- "found" the Book of Mormon. There is no reason to continue this discussion, any further attempts to censor the article by the IP should be treated as any other tendentious editing. There has been plenty of explanation provided, so it's not like there wasn't discussion (thank you Taivo). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like y'all achieved your purpose in blocking serious archeologists. The horse claim was entirely yours - I stated evolution acording to science. The reference in the article (No. 75) does not match Mayans, so here's my third article change proposal:

Joseph Smith described the Book of Mormon plates as being deposited in a stone box in a New York hillside. The box was described as “formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement”.[76] Helaman chapter 3, verse 7 in the Book of Mormon states: "And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell." Cement has been used by at least some Pre-Columbian Native American groups and was discovered at Mayan sites (above ref). Cement like materials, especially lime-plaster, were used across Mesoamerica from about 1,000 BC on. (above academic Lambart ref. - academic and official government U.S. Department ref).

Please check the my governmental, academic, and scientific references and you will see that it matches. --188.61.251.156 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You're not a serious archeologist so your first sentence is counter-factual. You have still provided no evidence for cement use outside the Mayan cultural sphere, so the sentence currently in the article is still accurate. You are now engaging in improper synthesis, which we've explained before is taking X and Y and then combining them to make a statement about Z. --Taivo (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of arguing. In ref. no 75 David S. Hyman (John's Hopkins University) talks about Native American groups - not Mesoamerican civilizations. Please follow Wikipedia rules with proper citations. I don't need to provide more non-Mayan cement use references, the objection I had was the wrong claim in the article of "no evidence of American cement around the time of Christ". This sentence was archeologically wrong and has been corrected. Now the citations/references also need to be corrected and if you look at my proposal, I do not claim any cement use outside Mayan civ. - Hyman did this (see ref 75 in article - the "stuff" you deleted!). What does this has to do with SYN? Actually, I don't even want to hear it. Please fix the wrong reference in the article to include both Mayan cement use and "cement has been discovered to have been used by at least some Pre-Columbian Native American group" as per Hyman / John's Hopkins University. --188.61.251.156 (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just show me the relevant quotes from Hyman that cement was used outside the Mayan area. --Taivo (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Mayans, Incas, Olmecs etc are not groups, but are city-states, empires, or civilizations. Wikipedia has CONSENSUS on this and is archeologically/scientifically correct. If you go into great scientific cement details (not visible, but lab tests required), then you should at least know the difference between Native American tribes/groups and Mesoamerican civilizations...

Also: Hyman never said Mayans. YOU interpretated Mayans as Native American groups. "You are now engaging in improper synthesis, which we've explained before is taking X and Y and then combining them to make a statement about Z." Can you follow your own quotes? --188.61.251.156 (talk) 05:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS only works on this article (WP:OTHERSTUFF) and you have not gained any kind of consensus at this point with your tendentious editing. I don't know what kind of point you're trying to make mentioning the Olmecs and Incas. That's irrelevant to this discussion at this point. If you're trying to make the claim that the Mayans weren't a "group", but were a "city-state, etc.", that seems to be a very silly assertion. "Group" is a general word in English and I am wondering if you really have a grasp on the ethnology of ancient America. But whether we call the Maya a "group" or "civilization" or "club" or "family" or "team" or any other collective name is immaterial to this discussion. At this point, your sources support what is currently in the article: that the Maya used something that some scholars call "cement" or "concrete". That's it. In order to support your claim that cement was used outside the Maya region, I've asked for some very simple pieces of information: the quotes from Hyman that indicate cement use outside the Maya. Your shouting is not helpful and is simply an attempt to distract. You claim that "Hyman never said Mayans". Please provide the relevant quotes and page numbers from Hyman that demonstrate that. --Taivo (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The point was that various forms of cement have been used in Pre-Columbian America in ref. to the title: Archeology+BoM. Can I assume we came to WP:CONSENSUS on this topic? If I'm correct, the BoM claims to end around 350AD - just after the end of the Mayan Terminal Preclassic Maya period. Why do ask for non-Mayan references? I mentioned other civilizations because of your request - and the Hyman quote because it's already been in this article.

The Hyman ref. link currently in the article is ([[WP:SYN|improper synthesis]), as the original Hyman quote talked about Native American groups - not about Mayans as it currently stands in the article. Personally, I don't like to use Hyman's outdated book (1970)... Can't you/we come to an agreement to give correct references? - either from one of the above provided references (with or without my proposal of keeping the original Hyman quote) and/or one (or more) of your own references? I haven't given you book references, as I assume y'all want to verify these references. --188.61.251.156 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the references you've provided, it seems that although they are generally poor and limited only to the Maya, there is enough evidence of Mayan cement use to remove this paragraph from the article. This article is about archeological anachronisms and impossibilities in Smith's fiction, so since there is some (admittedly limited) evidence for cement use, it is no longer a strict impossibility or anachronism. Even though there is no evidence whatsoever of aboriginal cement use in western New York, we haven't made that fine a distinction in other sections here so there is no real need to make such a distinction here. I have deleted the paragraph as no longer appropriate in this context. That doesn't mean you've proven cement use outside the Mayan area, it only means that you have met a very minimum standard of evidence. --Taivo (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that it doesn't fit into this article section. Looking at above "Whole article not objective, focuses on disproving with non-fact based information" and having claimed to be neutral, I would have created a new section that wouldn't focus on disproving the BoM, but rather "Archeology and the Book of Mormon". I think both Pre-Columbian cement-like findings, massive Mesoamerican cities (around 200,000 people), wars, and especially highway-systems should be included in such a new section - granted neutrality is the focus of this article and WP:CONSENSUS is reached. As the article is now, I am happy that no wrong cement claims are included and 40 years of archeological work is no longer ignored. Thank you! --188.61.251.156 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with any such section that focuses on "archeological evidence for BOM" is that belief that the BOM is factual at all violates WP:NPOV. We work hard at Book of Mormon to keep the word "fictional" out of the article to maintain NPOV, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should have any section "proving" the archeological accuracy of the BOM. That is for missionary tracts not for here. That is the kind of thing you want to go to the LDS Wiki and pursue. Since the idea that the BOM is historical truth is a WP:FRINGE view, there is no scientific basis for such a section. In terms of archeological evidence that unequivocally supports the BOM narrative, there is absolutely none. There's not a single, solitary archeological site that has been linked to a BOM site by non-LDS archeologists. So there is no real archeological confirmation of the BOM text. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, therefore information in the guise of archeological confirmation of an account whose accuracy is only based on an act of religious acceptance is a violation of NPOV and not encyclopedic. --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

References clean-up

My discussion on wide-spread cement use in pre-Columbian America, lead me to look at this article. It is obvious that there are strong emotions involved, both by Mormons and anti-Mormons. Nevertheless, this is a Wikipedia article and, as pointed out by certain contributors, needs to follow Wikipedia standards.

I looked at the references and noted a) many links are disconnected (all related statements should be deleted) b) tons of references are from theologians (not archeologists) and therefore of most questionable source c) Too many references are outdated. Messo-American archeology made major leaps since the late 1970s, and still this article references to old and outdated archeological data.

Please clean up, update, and follow Wikipedia standarts !!! --188.61.251.156 (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I started to include for several archeological topics. As the article stands now, there are tons of claims and statements that are archeologically wrong and do not follow Wikipedia rules. Sadly, some people keep on ignoring Wikipedia rules and insist to keep false statements in the article (based on believe / original research, instead of real archeology) - and keep on deleting citation requests. --188.61.251.156 (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Certain article writters pointed out how important it is to follow Wikipedia rules. Even though, I agree with much that is written in this article, I like to help these "neutral" article writters to follow Wikipedia WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN rules - not only on the one statement about cement that I/archeology disagree with, but also on various other topics. Like said, I agree with most statements that are uncited, but, as pointet out by others, Wikipedia rules are very important!--188.61.251.156 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of changes since my last visit... In Modern approach and conclusions it is stated that Mr. Hampton Sides represents an archaeological opinion (not cited). This CANNOT be! Mr. Sides is a journalist who most likely never set foot on any Mayan archaeological site.

Educated archeologists know that Spanish Conquistadors spoke about Andean sheep, although there were no sheep in pre-Columbian America! Many scientific names for animals in Middle and South America are technically wrong - examples: Guinea pig and Capybara or Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris (lat. water pig)- there are no native pigs. So, if Mr. Sides would have done his homework he would have known that in relation to Mesoamerican archaeology his statement is nothing more than a personal oppinion and does certainly NOT represent a general archaeological opinion - nor does it meet Wikipedia guidelines.

Real archeologists know that the meaning of words change over the centuries and that even scientific names are often not true. In relation to horses and archeology: the Egyptian sign/hyroglyph (htr or heter) for our word "horse" stands equal to our word "donkey". In a global view, an ancient Egyptian would have also used the same sign (htr) for a zebra (Africa), a llama (South America), a shetland pony (Europe), and even a nilgai (India). I will not speculate what Smith meant with "horse" (this would be original research and as it stands, is an anachronism), but one thing is also sure: Mr. Sides uneducated statment has nothing to do with an example of the mainstream archaeological opinion. This comment is about as scientific as someone proclaiming that the dragons, giants, and unicorns in the Bible are real... This uncited claim needs to be either changed or better: entirely deleted! --188.61.251.156 (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You're on drugs. Virtually nothing has changed since your last edit was reverted. The paragraph on cement was deleted. Sides' comment is a summary of what mainstream archeologists think about Smith's fictional account of Native America. It doesn't matter whether he is an archeologist or not, he is summarizing the opinion of archeologists. --Taivo (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you just confirm that "the journalist Sides represents aercheologists" is original research? Do I need to re-quote Wikipedia rules + guidlines? There is a major difference between proving "the divinity of the Book of Mormon" based on archaeology and changing/ignoring real archaeology to disprove the Book of Mormon! The official oppinion of proffessional archaeologists, such as the Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society, is that we don't prove the BoM right. Recent discoveries made us change previous statements of rejecting the BoM in its entirety. Please stick to these official statements, stop spreading your personal oppinion, and follow Wikipedia guidelines! --188.61.251.156 (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We all know that you're another sock of User:Plausy trying to avoid your block, so just give it up. We have been over this ground over and over and over--religious texts are treated differently. We are not going to delete the material in this article wholesale because you are anti-Mormon and want to list this all as "fringe". Ain't gonna happen, Plausy. --Taivo (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you on drugs? There's no block on my account. Should there be one on yours? Are you willing to follow Wikipedia rules? Will you not ignore real archaeology? Once you do this, I won't have any reason to waste my time with religious discussions. If the journalist Sides would represent archaeologists (and he doesn't), then state a credible reference that follows Wikipedia guidelines, if you cannot do this (and you won't), then delete your personal faith-based oppinion and stick to the official quotations from the Smithsonian and the National Geographic Society. This is also my proffessional oppinion. Is it really so hard to accept real archaeology? --188.61.251.156 (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Respect for believers

User:Plausy, don't think I'm fooled by your new block-evading identity as User:Unfraud. --Taivo (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sock blocked by another Admin, I've semi-protected 2 articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion or exclusion of fringe models

I'm new to this discussion and would appreciate some direction and clarification. For several years now the website achoiceland.com has promoted their model of the Book of Mormon in Baja. I have also developed a model, different from theirs in many respects, but with some similarities regarding being centered around San Ignacio, Baja California Sur. I edited this page last evening with what I considered was a fair relation of the strengths and weaknesses of Baja-centered models. The edit was removed citing two things. First that it was "fringe". Second, that I might be biased. I believe the second criticism is certainly fair and if my being biased means I shouldn't post here then I'm ok with that, although I think you would find that the content of my post was factual and attempted to simply relay both strengths and weaknesses of the model. What is confusing to me is that the post is considered "fringe" as compared to so much of the rest of this article. What criteria are used to decide that one model is fringe while another is not? It seems to me that a major point of the article is that all proposed archaeology is currently considered "fringe".

It has occurred to me that my post did not introduce any points regarding specific archaeology, so I would like to add information regarding the Valle de Azufre obsidian source and the El Conchalito archaeological sites in Baja California to support the model. Please provide criteria for which the current content of this article deliniates "fringe" ideas from the supposedly "non-fringe" content currently allowed to be posted. In addition, it would be appreciated to have some link from the "non-fringe" content in this article to someplace where folks like me can express points that are so much more "fringe" than what you allow on this page. Thank you. Bofmmodel (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer is right above yours from editor Taivo. Let me repost it as he said it much better than I ever could:

"The problem with any such section that focuses on "archeological evidence for BOM" is that belief that the BOM is factual at all violates WP:NPOV. We work hard at Book of Mormon to keep the word "fictional" out of the article to maintain NPOV, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should have any section "proving" the archeological accuracy of the BOM. That is for missionary tracts not for here. That is the kind of thing you want to go to the LDS Wiki and pursue. Since the idea that the BOM is historical truth is a WP:FRINGE view, there is no scientific basis for such a section. In terms of archeological evidence that unequivocally supports the BOM narrative, there is absolutely none. There's not a single, solitary archeological site that has been linked to a BOM site by non-LDS archeologists. So there is no real archeological confirmation of the BOM text. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, therefore information in the guise of archeological confirmation of an account whose accuracy is only based on an act of religious acceptance is a violation of NPOV and not encyclopedic."

Regards, --Manway 19:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Manway's quote from me above deals with the whole issue of BOM history and archeology, so I'll be very specific here. WP:FRINGE deals with scientific theories that are only on the periphery of the field and are not widely accepted within the field. BOM archeology as a whole is entirely fringe relative to archeology. But even within the context of BOM archeology, among LDS archeologists who are attempting to find archeological evidence for the BOM, the Baja theory is fringe and not widely accepted even within that small compass of specialists. Here at Wikipedia we do not list every single, solitary theory on each topic, even with the disclaimer "this is considered to be bunk by most specialists". That would not be encyclopedic. So unless you have some kind of solid evidence that this Baja theory is more widely accepted than the rest of us think it is, then it isn't appropriate for here, and even if it is, it certainly isn't appropriate at the level of detail you originally wrote. We're talking about one or two sentences tops, if you can demonstrate that it isn't fringe. --Taivo (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And that is a separate issue from the conflict of interest you have. Exclusion is doubly appropriate for a fringe theory when the editor trying to insert it is the author or a primary proponent of the theory. --Taivo (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually hold no argument with most of the the various things you're arguing here. I said before that I don't consider myself unbiased. I also understand the difference between accepted encyclopedic knowledge and conjecture like models such as mine. The thing that I cannot make sense of is how you go about determining whether something should or should not be included in this particular article. Apparently a discussion about whether a tapir is actually a horse is a mainstream argument regarding archaeology, not because it's not obviously a stupid argument, but because enough people in the LDS community give it an upvote. What you have here is a Wikipedia article that has seriously jumped the rails. I am a proponent of the Book of Mormon but I'll also be the first to say that current archaeological evidence does not verify anything in the text. There is no evidence to the contrary. Why let this topic go so wild on some subjects but be so restrictive on others? A horse is a horse of course... Bofmmodel (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)